My condolences, Elfie.
And it Begins:Special Prosecutor To Investigate Trump And Russia
- Thread starter Elfiero
- Start date
- Status
Wow. You mean he really didn't collude with Russia? But, but, but....
Stone just got subpoenaed. It's tough to close an investigation, when you are still investigating...
He will testify.......again.......and slide away like he always does.
Sent from my [device_name] using Steeler Nation mobile app
Investigating what, Cope? Seriously, investigating Manafort's 2005 and 2007 tax filings? What the **** does that have to do with Trump or Russia or anything?
And Federal judges are starting to raise the same questions, Cope:
A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...am-lying-trying-to-target-trump-cmon-man.html
Here is a transcript of the court hearing, where the judge is obviously unimpressed with the Manafort allegations as they relate to Trump:
THE COURT: All right. The indictment against Mr. Manafort was filed in February, but it actually was antedated by a filing in the District of Columbia. These allegations of bank fraud, of false income tax returns, of failure to register or report rather, failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts, and bank fraud, these go back to 2005, 2007,and so forth. Clearly, this investigation of Mr. Manafort's bank loans and so forth antedated the appointment of any special prosecutor and, therefore, must've been underway in the Department of Justice for some considerable period before the letter of appointment, which is dated the 17th of May in 2017. Am I correct?
MR. DREEBEN: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So when the special prosecutor was appointed -- and I have the letter of appointment in front of me -- what did they do? Turn over their file on their investigation of Mr. Manafort to you all?
MR. DREEBEN: Essentially, Your Honor,special counsel was appointed to conduct an investigation --
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Answer my question. Did you remember what my question was?
MR. DREEBEN: Yes, Your Honor, and I was attempting to answer your question. We did acquire the various investigatory threads that related to Mr. Manafort upon the appointment of the special counsel.
THE COURT: Apparently, if I look at the indictment, none of that information has anything to do with links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump. That seems to me to be obvious because they all long predate any contact or any affiliation of this defendant with the campaign. So I don't see what relation this indictment has with anything the special prosecutor is authorized to investigate.It looks to me instead that what is happening is that this investigation was underway. It had something. The special prosecutor took it, got indictments, and then in a time-honored practice which I'm fully familiar with -- it exists largely in the drug area. If you get somebody in a conspiracy and get something against them, you can then tighten the screws, and they will begin to provide information in what you're really interested in. That seems to me to be what is happening here. I'm not saying it's illegitimate, but I think we ought to be very clear about these facts and what is happening. Now, I think you've already conceded appropriately that this investigation that has led to this indictment long antedated the appointment of a special prosecutor; that it doesn't have anything to do with Russia or the campaign; and that he's indicted;and it's useful, as in many cases by prosecutors, to exert leverage on a defendant so that the defendant will turn and provide information on what is really the focus of the special prosecutor. Where am I wrong in that regard?
MR. DREEBEN: The issue, I think, before you is whether Mr. Manafort can dismiss the indictment based on his claim.
THE COURT: Yes. Now I asked you: Where am I wrong about that?
MR. DREEBEN: Your Honor, our investigatory scope does cover the activities that led to the indictment in this case.
THE COURT: It covers bank fraud in 2005 and and 2007?
MR. DREEBEN: Yes, because --
THE COURT: Tell me how
MR. DREEBEN: Your Honor, the authorization for the special counsel to investigate matters is described generally in the appointment order on May --
THE COURT: I have it right in front of me,and it won't surprise you to learn that I'm fully familiar with it. My question to you was, how does bank fraud and these other things that go back to 2005,2007, how does that have anything to do with links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Trump?
MR. DREEBEN: So the authorization order permits investigation of two different things that are described in separate clauses. The first are links and coordination between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government's effort to influence the election. Mr. Manafort was a campaign official.
THE COURT: You're running away from my question again. You know, I'm focused on the indictment that is here.
MR. DREEBEN: Correct.
THE COURT: It involves facts and circumstances that go back as far as 2005 and come forward, Mr. Manafort's loans from several banks that asking you, and I've already established this investigation long predated the special prosecutor.And so what is really going on, it seems to me, is that this indictment is used as a means of exerting pressure on the defendant to give you information that really is in your appointment, but it itself has nothing whatever to do with it.
MR. DREEBEN: Well, Your Honor, I understand the question. I'm trying to explain why I think that it does have to do with our investigatory scope, and I think there are a couple of premises that may help illuminate what that investigatory scope is.The first one is that in examining an individual who was associated with the Trump campaign and did have Russian-affiliated connections, which Mr. Manafort did --
THE COURT: Are they Russian or Ukrainian?
MR. DREEBEN: Both. Mr. Manafort worked extensively in Ukraine, and he also has business connections and other connections to individuals associated with Russia.In following the leads from those things, activities that are at issue in this indictment.
THE COURT: Well, it didn't lead to that.This was given to you by the Department of Justice.The investigation was already well underway going back to 2005. Am I correct?
MR. DREEBEN: Well, I think, Your Honor, the investigation has developed considerably with the special counsel.
THE COURT: Wasn't it already in existence in the Department of Justice, and they gave it to you when you all were appointed?
MR. DREEBEN: There were investigations that were in existence, yes, but those investigations were folded together with our overall examination of Mr. Manafort's conduct that fits within (b)(i).
THE COURT: All right. Do you have it in front of you?
MR. DREEBEN: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. I think you would agree that the indictment that we have before the Court is not triggered by (i), which says, "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." Bank fraud in 2005 and other things had nothing whatever to do with that. So then you go to number two. It says, "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Well, this indictment didn't arise from your investigation; it arose from a preexisting investigation even assuming that that (ii) is a valid delegation because it's open-ended. Go ahead, sir.
MR. DREEBEN: So I would take a different look at the way this order works than Your Honor's description for a couple of reasons.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DREEBEN: The first is that in provision(c) which is in the order, the special counsel is authorized to prosecute matters that arose from the investigation that is described earlier in the preamble and in (b)(i) and (b)(ii). So we are not limited in our prosecution authority to crimes that would fit within the precise description that was issued in this public order. If the investigation is valid, the crimes that arose from that investigation are within the special counsel's authority to prosecute.
THE COURT: Even though it didn't arise from your investigation? It arose from a preexisting investigation.
MR. DREEBEN: Well, the investigation was inherited by the special counsel.
THE COURT: That's right, but your argument says, Even though the investigation was really done by the Justice Department, handed to you, and then you're now using it, as I indicated before, as a means of persuading Mr. Manafort to provide information. It's vernacular by the way. I've been here along time. The vernacular is to sing. That's what prosecutors use, but what you've got to be careful of is they may not just sing. They may also compose. I can see a few veteran defense counsel here, and they have spent a good deal of time in this courtroom trying to persuade a jury that there wasn't singing, there was composing going on.But in any event, finish up this point, and then I'll come back to the defendant.
MR. DREEBEN: Well, Your Honor, we are the Justice Department. We are not separate from the Justice Department. The acting attorney general appointed us to complete investigations and to conduct the investigation that's described in this order In addition, the acting attorney general has made clear in testimony before Congress that this order does not reflect the details of the matters that were assigned to us for investigation. And the word "arose" from that's contained in (b) is not a full and complete description that's meant to be judicially enforceable of the matters that were entrusted --
THE COURT: So it's written by lawyers but not intended to be judicially enforceable?
MR. DREEBEN: It's certainly not intended to be judicially --
THE COURT: I think you are better off arguing that it's very broad and that the matters that are here are well within it. But to say that you can write a letter delegating a job to somebody but don't pay any attention to the scope of it is not very persuasive to say the least.
MR. DREEBEN: Well --
THE COURT: What we don't want in this country is we don't want anyone with unfettered power.We don't want federal judges with unfettered power. We don't want elected officials with unfettered power. We don't want anybody, including the president of the United States, nobody to have unfettered power. So it's unlikely you're going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.
The entire investigation has nothing - NOTHING - to do with Trump or Russia. It has to do with business dealings that are 12 years or more old, as a way to bludgeon witnesses to provide dubious testimony to try and ding Trump.
Nothing more. I called this more than a year ago, when I read the indictment and discussed it with Tibs, by the way.
Actually knowing the law matters when analyzing legal issues.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Rudy Giuliani says Robert Mueller’s team has concluded it can’t indict a sitting president
“All they get to do is write a report,” Mr. Giulianitold CNN. “They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”
"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."
Mr. Mueller’s power to indict the president has been hotly debated since the investigation started last year. It appears that Justice Department guidelines limit the special counsel to issue a report or make a referral to Congress.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel investigation, publicly said last month a sitting president cannot be indicted.
“I’m not going to answer this in the context of any current matters, so you shouldn’t draw any inference about it,” Mr. Rosenstein said speaking an event by the Freedom Forum Institute. “But the Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. There’s been a lot of speculation in the media about this, I just don’t have anything more to say about it.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/16/rudy-giuliani-says-robert-muellers-team-concluded-/
“All they get to do is write a report,” Mr. Giulianitold CNN. “They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”
"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."
Mr. Mueller’s power to indict the president has been hotly debated since the investigation started last year. It appears that Justice Department guidelines limit the special counsel to issue a report or make a referral to Congress.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel investigation, publicly said last month a sitting president cannot be indicted.
“I’m not going to answer this in the context of any current matters, so you shouldn’t draw any inference about it,” Mr. Rosenstein said speaking an event by the Freedom Forum Institute. “But the Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. There’s been a lot of speculation in the media about this, I just don’t have anything more to say about it.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/16/rudy-giuliani-says-robert-muellers-team-concluded-/
The conclusion of argument before District Court Judge Elliot:
THE COURT: Well, I understand your argument,but let me characterize it and see if you find it as satisfying as you appear to indicate that you think it is: We said this is what the investigation was about. But we're not going to be bound by it, and we weren't really telling the truth in that May 17 letter. I don't watch pro football, but I used to enjoy the program that came beforehand where a bunch of players would get on and essentially make fun of everybody. But they would put on some ridiculous thing, and then they would all say in a chorus, "Come on, man."
THE COURT: All right. I might mention to you that I've gone through the indictment, as you would expect me to do. There's no mention in the indictment that I know of that refers to any Russian individual or any Russian bank or any Russian money or any payments by Russians to Mr. Manafort. Correct?
MR. DREEBEN: I think that is correct, but the money that forms the basis for the criminal charges here, the tax charges, the bank fraud charges comes from his Ukraine activities. That's what we were focused on. So we followed the money into the transactions that led to the criminal charges here, and it's that factual link that connects the subject of the investigation in --
THE COURT: You can't be talking about bank fraud because that's not where money came from. That's getting money from a bank without telling the truth,but it could be in the false income tax. Is that what you're suggesting?
MR. DREEBEN: It's both, Your Honor, because the Ukraine money was used to purchase and improve real estate. The transactions that are charged as bank fraud extracted that money and made it --
THE COURT: Purchases of his homes.
MR. DREEBEN: With money that he derived from the Ukraine activities we've alleged. That's the factual connection, Your Honor. I'm just trying to explain why we regard this as connected to our investigation. [Actually, the prior DOJ investigation which began years earlier it seems.]
So the entire investigation is about money Manafort earned in 2005 or 2007 and used to buy a home ... almost a decade before the ******* election.
THE COURT: Well, I understand your argument,but let me characterize it and see if you find it as satisfying as you appear to indicate that you think it is: We said this is what the investigation was about. But we're not going to be bound by it, and we weren't really telling the truth in that May 17 letter. I don't watch pro football, but I used to enjoy the program that came beforehand where a bunch of players would get on and essentially make fun of everybody. But they would put on some ridiculous thing, and then they would all say in a chorus, "Come on, man."
THE COURT: All right. I might mention to you that I've gone through the indictment, as you would expect me to do. There's no mention in the indictment that I know of that refers to any Russian individual or any Russian bank or any Russian money or any payments by Russians to Mr. Manafort. Correct?
MR. DREEBEN: I think that is correct, but the money that forms the basis for the criminal charges here, the tax charges, the bank fraud charges comes from his Ukraine activities. That's what we were focused on. So we followed the money into the transactions that led to the criminal charges here, and it's that factual link that connects the subject of the investigation in --
THE COURT: You can't be talking about bank fraud because that's not where money came from. That's getting money from a bank without telling the truth,but it could be in the false income tax. Is that what you're suggesting?
MR. DREEBEN: It's both, Your Honor, because the Ukraine money was used to purchase and improve real estate. The transactions that are charged as bank fraud extracted that money and made it --
THE COURT: Purchases of his homes.
MR. DREEBEN: With money that he derived from the Ukraine activities we've alleged. That's the factual connection, Your Honor. I'm just trying to explain why we regard this as connected to our investigation. [Actually, the prior DOJ investigation which began years earlier it seems.]
So the entire investigation is about money Manafort earned in 2005 or 2007 and used to buy a home ... almost a decade before the ******* election.
Over what? A sitting president can't be indicted, but one thrown out on his *** in 2020 can be. That is if the Repugnicans in power do nothing towards impeachment no matter how illegal and corrupt Trump behaves, and of course the Dems don't gain control of the house(which I believe they will).
If the Dems get control you can count on impeachment hearings coming quickly afterwards.
Either way it doesn't matter as Mueller has firewalled this baby as I said a year ago. The state A.G. in N.Y. has more than enough handed to him by Mueller to put Trump away.
Mueller's investigation isn't going to 'wrap up' soon — and Trump is still in peril
By Harry Litman
May 16, 2018 | 11:20 AM
Thursday marks the one-year anniversary of the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. The milestone has emboldened White House critics of the probe to declare, as Vice President Mike Pence did on NBC News, that "it is time to wrap it up."
Never mind that the Mueller investigation is, comparatively, in its infancy. The Whitewater probe of Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example, began in 1994 and ended more than six years later. Mueller's 12 months of work has turned up more clear wrongdoing than Kenneth Starr ever did: There have been 20 indictments and 5 guilty pleas, including prominent senior members of the campaign and administration, and that doesn't take into account the wealth of information that Mueller has yet to make public.
Some Republicans suggest that public opinion is shifting, that Trump's refrain of "witch hunt" may be gaining purchase. As the president's latest mouthpiece Rudolph W. Giuliani crowed, "We've gone from defense to offense."
"Wrap it up" advocates can point to a slight uptick in Trump's approval ratings, and a downtick in public support for the investigation. They seem to think that if Mueller doesn't close up shop soon in response to political pressure, Trump's position is strong enough that he could put an end to it, perhaps by firing the special counsel or the special counsel's boss, Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein, and weather any storm the move occasions.
They're wrong. The probe isn't going to end soon, simply or painlessly for this president. Trump remains in great peril.
Anyone paying attention over the last year knows Mueller will not yield to political pressure. His investigators haven't leaked; they have ignored vicious personal attacks; they haven't veered in the slightest from prosecutorial professionalism.
So to "wrap it up," Trump would have to make a move, but will he?
The president and his lawyers are strategizing about whether he will agree to be interviewed by Mueller, either voluntarily or under subpoena. If he were to refuse, as the current swing of the pendulum suggests, and then try to end the probe, he would only seem more guilty and undermine his support even among Republicans. If his refusal were to lead, as expected, to a court battle, we would expect the Supreme Court to settle the issue. Any move by Trump to preempt it would again only undermine his credibility.
In addition, the president and his circle are well aware of how fast the midterm election is approaching and what effect an attempt to fire Mueller could have on the outcome. They want to avoid any action that would help the Democrats flip the House. Such a shift would change every calculation, not least because a Democratic majority could move to impeach the president early next year.
Of course, Trump may calculate that he could get away with firing Mueller now, if he moved quickly and the Republican leadership rallied to his side. But it is equally possible that Congress would respond with legislation to reinstate Mueller. Again, the field of battle would shift to the courts.
Most importantly, even a successful ouster of Mueller would not derail the investigation at this point. Too much evidence has been gathered, and too many prosecutors, who have surely considered and planned for the contingency, stand ready to carry on. Should Trump try to shutter the entire special counsel's office, a much graver and politically and legally riskier act than firing Mueller or Rosenstein, other divisions in the Department of Justice, in particular the Southern District of New York, would also be ready to take up the charge.
The strength of all that evidence, the careful work done thus far, and the indictments already filed are the special counsel's protection against "witch hunt" tweets and protestations that the investigation is already over with nothing to show for it.
In the course of the past year, we've learned not to underestimate what Mueller knows and what bombshell he may have prepared. It may involve the Russians and the campaign, it may involve obstruction of justice, but there are other relevant threads as well: the true motive behind the Seychelles meeting between Trump associate Erik Prince and the head of a Russian wealth fund, the hacking of Democratic Party emails and its links to Trump political advisor Roger Stone, the recent sale of Russia's state owned oil company to Qatar.
Last week we discovered that Mueller was way ahead of us on the huge payments made to Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen for access to the president. We don't yet know what he's found out from cooperating witnesses, including Michael Flynn and Carter Page, that might point directly at the president. And there is still the possibility that Paul Manafort or Cohen could decide to cooperate with the investigation.
None of these threads signals Trump's removal from office. A conviction in the Senate, no matter what happens in the midterm, would require a good number of Republicans to turn against the president, which seems remote absent a smoking gun that proves grave criminal conduct. But it is more than plausible that the probe and associated investigations will result in additional indictments of Trump associates — including Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. — and will leave Trump seriously wounded, an untenable candidate in 2020. Once he leaves office, his legal exposure, both civil and criminal, would skyrocket.
The "wrap it up" crowd is indulging in wishful thinking. The first anniversary of the Mueller investigation is unlikely to be the last.
Harry Litman teaches constitutional law at UC San Diego. He is a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general.
You, Tibs, the rest of the violent, intolerant Left...this is what you do...even when presented with the reality that's it's done...you hope. You wish upon a star.
Let the good times continue to roll while we drink the tears.
Elfie, my condolences are there because you've been wrong on EVERYTHING for so long and I know you loathe everything about this President who's going to be around for quite a while it looks due to the progress this country is making. It must be a miserable existence.
Again, not-so-sincere condolences. Peach Pie not being served at local diners I'm seeing.
Again, not-so-sincere condolences. Peach Pie not being served at local diners I'm seeing.
Quit believing what the Reich Wing media tells you. As former Deputy A.G. Litman stated in that article he wrote; this investigation isn't going anywhere, and the Turd in Chief is still in big trouble.
The Starr investigation of Clinton went on for 6 years(in a case of a true nothingburger) here there have already been 20 indictments. This thing is just warming up.
Keep kidding yourself.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,690
- Reaction score
- 12,926
- Points
- 113
Now I'm violent and intolerant?
Yet you people here are the ones talking abut shooting innocent people coming across the border?
Your sickness is beyond anything I can comprehend.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,690
- Reaction score
- 12,926
- Points
- 113
Elfie,
Pull real hard on your shoulders and see if you can remove your head from your ***.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Steeler Nation mobile app
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,891
- Reaction score
- 14,271
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Lebanon, OH (Near Kings Island)
So lets say six years from now it is still going on then I would call that Trump winning because he will STILL be President. Seriously who is kidding whom?
First off Elfie, I must say that I do appreciate that you engage in adult dialogue with me, and even if we have different political philosophies, there really aren't personal insults being flung around.
I understand the special counsel has ultimate say, but things are looking pretty bleak for a Trump impeachment. I'd like to expand on other things at the moment but can't. Enjoy your evening.
Oh shut the **** up Elfie.
You liberal vermin are the most violent and intolerant form of sub-human ever to walk the earth.
From the rioting before and after Trumps election, to the Bernie Sanders supporting scum that tried to shoot Republicans at a baseball game, to Antifa, to Kathy Griffin and Trumps severed head to these liberal democRAT a-holes:
1) "Michele (Bachmann), slit your wrist. Go ahead... or, do us all a better thing [sic]. Move that knife up about two feet. Start right at the collarbone." -- Montel Williams
2) “F*ck that dude. I’ll smack that f*cker’s comb-over right off his f*cking scalp. Like, for real, if I met Donald Trump, I’d punch him in his f*cking face. And that’s not a joke. Even if he did become president — watch out, Donald Trump, because I will punch you in your f*cking face if I ever meet you. Secret Service had better just f*cking be on it. Don’t let me anywhere within a block.”– Rapper Everlast on Donald Trump
3) “I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow….I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Bill Maher
4) “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama Plan White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.” — The Washington Post’s Courtland Milloy
5) “F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead.” — Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.
6) “Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country? Because it seem
7) "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks." -- Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa
8) “..And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq ‘We have our good days and our bad days.’ We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say ‘This is one of our bad days’ and pull the trigger. Do you want to salvage our country? Be a savior of our country? Then vote for John Kerry and get rid of the whole Bush Bunch.” — From a fund raising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club
9) “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” — The Village Voice’s Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places
10) “But the victim is also inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man. Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. Death can’t change that. But in the U.S., we don’t die for speaking our minds. Or we’re not supposed to anyway. Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security.” — Linda Stasi, New York Daily News,on a victim murdered in the San Bernadino terrorist attack
11) “Cheney deserves same final end he gave Saddam. Hope there are cell cams.” — Rep. Chuck Kruger (D-Thomaston)
12) “If I had my way, I would see Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell strapped down to electric chairs and lit up like Christmas trees. The better to light the way for American Democracy and American Freedom!” — Democratic Talk Radio’s Stephen Crockett
13) “May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.” — Allan Brauer, the communications chair of the Democratic Party of Sacramento County to Ted Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter
14) “Violence solves nothing. I want a rhino to f*ck @SpeakerRyan to death with its horn because it's FUNNY, not because he's a #GOPmurderbro.” – Jos Whedon
15) “I hope Roger Ailes dies slow, painful, and soon. The evil that man has done to the American tapestry is unprecedented for an individual.” — Think Progress editorAlan Pyke
16) “But, you know, the NRA members are the current incarnation of the brownshirts from Germany back in the early ’30s, late ’20s, early ’30s. Now, of course, there came the Night of the Long Knives when the brownshirts were slaughtered and dumped in the nearest ditches when the power structure finally got tired of them. So I look forward to that day.” — Mike Malloy
17) "Or pick up a baseball bat and take out every f*cking republican and independent I see. #f*cktrump, #f*cktheGOP, #f*ckstraightwhiteamerica, #f*ckyourprivilege." -- Orange is the New Black star Lea DeLaria responding to a meme about using music to deal with violence
18) “I wish they (Republicans) were all f*cking dead!” — Dan Savage
19) “Sarah Palin needs to have her hair shaved off to a buzz cut, get headf*cked by a big veiny, ashy, black d*ck then be locked in a cupboard.” — Azealia Banks advocates raping Sarah Palin over a fake news story
20)” Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything." -- Madonna
So.... what if the whole mueller thing was really an elaborate get out of jail gimmick for a bunch of Trump's friends... i mean it's probably what it seems... a political vendetta investigation... but the guy is pushing a ton of legal boundaries on this... what if a court rules that he was way out of scope on the majority of this and since it all stemmed from an initial report that was falsified all of it may get tossed... fruit from a poisoned tree and all that nonsense...
I mean im just trying to figure out where the writers of this sitcom called America are going next... and that would be hilarious... and it would pretty much wipe a bunch of problematic legal stuff out for the friends of Trump....
Also... no indictment allowed of a sitting president... imagine that... the same interpretation of the law that's been in place forever still holds true... so once more, all my fine friends who lean left... do you really expect a vote to impeach trump to get the constitutionally necessary 2/3rd vote to remove him over anything here?
Ken Starr dragged things out for six years, but he had multiple investigations going on... rather than appoint a separate investgator for each of Clinton's legal issues... from whitewater to sexual Harrasment to lying under oath and everything else that drew the publics eye...
mueller has been given a single directive...nothing has been added to drag things out yet...
I think if there isn't a concrete bombshell before election day, the investigation gets mothballed... and frankly I don't think the elfies of the world realize how badly all of this is going to end if they cannot deliver the pie in the sky pipe dream of Trumps impeachment... and any impeachment is virtually impossible in the national scene... it just doesn't happen...
I mean im just trying to figure out where the writers of this sitcom called America are going next... and that would be hilarious... and it would pretty much wipe a bunch of problematic legal stuff out for the friends of Trump....
Also... no indictment allowed of a sitting president... imagine that... the same interpretation of the law that's been in place forever still holds true... so once more, all my fine friends who lean left... do you really expect a vote to impeach trump to get the constitutionally necessary 2/3rd vote to remove him over anything here?
Ken Starr dragged things out for six years, but he had multiple investigations going on... rather than appoint a separate investgator for each of Clinton's legal issues... from whitewater to sexual Harrasment to lying under oath and everything else that drew the publics eye...
mueller has been given a single directive...nothing has been added to drag things out yet...
I think if there isn't a concrete bombshell before election day, the investigation gets mothballed... and frankly I don't think the elfies of the world realize how badly all of this is going to end if they cannot deliver the pie in the sky pipe dream of Trumps impeachment... and any impeachment is virtually impossible in the national scene... it just doesn't happen...
One year later and.....................................................................
20 indictments? Oh, including indicting 13 Russians and Russian companies where Mueller's "brilliant" team is now being humiliated for those asinine charges, right? And guilty pleas ... how many involve Russia? Or the 2016 election?
RIGHT, NONE, YOU BLITHERING ASSWIPE.
Crawl back into your hole, you detestable maggot.
Trump marks 'second year of the greatest Witch Hunt' in history, says 'only' Dems colluded
Adam Shaw By Adam Shaw | Fox News
President Trump on Thursday sarcastically celebrated the anniversary of FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, tweeting “we are now into the second year of the greatest Witch Hunt in American History” and claiming the only collusion came from Democrats.
Congratulations America, we are now into the second year of the greatest Witch Hunt in American History...and there is still No Collusion and No Obstruction. The only Collusion was that done by Democrats who were unable to win an Election despite the spending of far more money!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2018
Adam Shaw By Adam Shaw | Fox News
President Trump on Thursday sarcastically celebrated the anniversary of FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, tweeting “we are now into the second year of the greatest Witch Hunt in American History” and claiming the only collusion came from Democrats.
Congratulations America, we are now into the second year of the greatest Witch Hunt in American History...and there is still No Collusion and No Obstruction. The only Collusion was that done by Democrats who were unable to win an Election despite the spending of far more money!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2018
No, it doesn't. The only way to assert criminal charges against a President is via impeachment. The reason for this is obvious, and being played out every day - if the judicial and legislative branches could level criminal charges against a sitting President, then those branches could and very likely would do so for purely political reasons.
And to say that impeachment is "so unfair" because it requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict ... a jury verdict on a criminal charge must be unanimous.
- Status